Quintard v. Bishop
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Trespass qu. cl. fr. The trespass alleged was the removal by the defendant of a fence erected by the plaintiff across certain land of which the plaintiff claimed the exclusive ownership, but which the defendant claimed to be highway. The case was tried to the court, on the general issue, with notice of justification.
Read the full summary
Trespass qu. cl. fr. The trespass alleged was the removal by the defendant of a fence erected by the plaintiff across certain land of which the plaintiff claimed the exclusive ownership, but which the defendant claimed to be highway. The case was tried to the court, on the general issue, with notice of justification. The plaintiff, on the 3rd day of May, 1833, was the owner in fee of the premises, and on that day entered into the following covenant with regard to the same with Alfred Bishop, whose rights under the covenant had been conveyed to the defendant. The land in question was that…
1Opinion of the CourtEllsworth, J.
We think that Alfred Bishop, under whose original right the defendant justifies, obtained from Isaac Quintard, by his deed of the 3d of May, 1833, the right of way now in controversy. The instrument was duly executed, and it was intended by the parties as therein expressed that a public right of way should be vested in said Bishop. Bishop v. Quintard, 18 Conn., 396.
*372Another highway is mentioned in the same instrument as granted to said Bishop, to wit, one on the west side of the building then occupied by W. & R. Hoyt. To this latter way there is annexed a proviso, that the right of way shall…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bishop v. QuintardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1847
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wood v. AmerConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
- State v. QuintilianoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2021